News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by mary_fortran on Monday September 12, 2016 @03:25PM (#12482833)
If you had 20 pounds to lose, you weren't healthy. You were fooling yourself. Healthy people aren't carrying around 20 extra pounds of fat.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by Ensorceled on Monday September 12, 2016 @03:49PM (#12483050)
> You were fooling yourself.

I think that's the entire point of his story.

Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by enraged_camel on Monday September 12, 2016 @03:41PM (#12482984)
He said he lost 20 pounds, not 20 pounds of fat.

The interesting thing about sugar is that it also causes your body to retain a lot of water. Same with salt.

So losing 20 pounds in a short time is totally possible for someone who is tall.

Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by tiglionabbit on Monday September 12, 2016 @07:28PM (#12484507)
+1

It's well known that folks who start a low-carb diet can expect to lose about 5lbs in water weight within the first week.

Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by jimmaswell on Monday September 12, 2016 @03:43PM (#12483001)
For an average height, the span between the lowest non-over-or-underweight weight and the highest is a lot more than 20 pounds, and being a bit into the overweight range doesn't automatically make you unhealthy either.

chart: http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelTemplates/Images/body-mass-inde...

Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by zumu on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:07PM (#12483199)
Don't forget there's a difference between weight from fat and weight from other sources (muscle, bone, water, etc).
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by mrep on Monday September 12, 2016 @08:56PM (#12484940)
If you lift weights, I wouldn't use body mass indexes.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by mmmpop on Monday September 12, 2016 @05:32PM (#12483870)
I'm 10 pounds heavier now than I was 3 years ago and I assure you I'm much healthier. So your sweeping generalization is entirely incorrect.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by ntaenta on Monday September 12, 2016 @03:45PM (#12483020)
That's not quite correct. The CDC recommends a body fat percentage between 18% to 25%, and it's generally acknowledged that athletes can drop down to around 5%-6% without adverse effects. So, given those numbers, most healthy adults are carrying at least 20 pounds that they could safely lose.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by whamlastxmas on Monday September 12, 2016 @03:55PM (#12483118)
CDC recommends BMI of 18 to 25. Completely different from body fat percentage. 25% body fat is pretty fat. It's a noticeably protruding belly, drooping love handles, and sometimes breast tissue that could be classified as an A-cup. BMI is a pretty poor standard anyway, since it would classify anyone who does body building even recreationally as obese.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by ntaenta on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:16PM (#12483264)
Oops, my mistake. I got confused by this table on the WebMD page below which does list 18-25% as an acceptable range for body fat percentage:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/body-fat-measurement#2

So my original numbers were actually correct, but instead of the CDC it's the American Council on Exercise, whatever that is. The page before has the CDC recommendations on BMI. I was surprised too that 25% is considered acceptable. I am aware of the difference between BMI and body fat percentage, and that the former is an inaccurate gauge of fitness.

Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by whamlastxmas on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:32PM (#12483376)
Considering the American Council on Exercise pushes the "Health at Every Size(C)" bullshit I'd never take them seriously. I can't be bothered to go find real studies on the issue but I would have to guess they'd tell you there's an increased risk of health issues at 25% body fat.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by ntaenta on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:41PM (#12483454)
Ah ok, I suppose I expected WebMD to rely on better sources of information. I stay around 7-10% body fat and feel good in that range -- the few times I've gone below that I felt lethargic and performed poorly in sports.
Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by whamlastxmas on Monday September 12, 2016 @07:23PM (#12484468)
WebMD is the buzzfeed of medical knowledge.

I suspect you're not actually at 7-10% body fat, that is ridiculously low. Like just skin and muscle, nothing else. It is physically impossible for most people to go below 7% without some serious drug abuse or eating disorder. Google image search "7% body fat" and see for yourself.

Re:How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat by Broken_Hippo on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:51PM (#12483541)
Your numbers are good for males. Often women have issues if they drop to the 5-6% range... missed periods, decreased fertility, hormonal changes, and other such things. Weirdly, some of the same issues people have with anorexia, only to a healthier extreme. I'm pretty sure they recommend women to have at least 9-11% body fat if they are muscular.